Canon officially announced two new ultra wide angle lenses. The first is the full frame EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM lens and the other is the 10-18mm F4.5-5.6 IS STM model for APS-C sensor bodies (16-29mm equivalent).
The two lenses will be available next month for $1,199 and $299 respectively.

I for one am curious about this new lens on the horizon. Will this be the "sharp" alternative to the current 16-35? I have been using the 16-35 2.8L mark 1 for a while and could use a jolt of corner sharpness along the lines of the ZE 21.

It looks like it is targeted to parallel the 24-70 IS 4.0. Maybe we will also see a 16-35 2.8 II non-IS?

It seems that all of teh newer lenses Canon have released are very good for their respective classes. I would assume this would also be a nice lens, esenntially to replace the 17-40 4.0. I have very rarely used my 17-40, so not something taht I will pursue soon, although it should be a nice lens for those building the 4.0 IS kit: 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 IS.

++++

It looks like there will also be an EF-S 10-18 IS STM 4.5-5.6 to complement the 18-135 MM IS STM & etc.

I would assume that it will sell around the same $350 price point as the 18-135 and 55-250 STM. It is a bit slow of course at 4 - 5.6. Hopefully it is as good as the other STM lenses have been for their price point.

I have no doubt an UWA f4 with IS is coming . if its optically decent it should be a very good option .
although I hope canon go sensible with the price . the 24-70/4 is silly money , although the street price has come down to much more sensible (but still a tad high ) money .

If the border and corner performance is noticeably better than the 2.8 II I am getting it. Then again, I am pretty sure a 14-24/2.8 will come this year as well and then I'll realize I made the wrong move.

Interesting. Seems Canon is filling out it's parallel lines of fixed-aperture L zooms -- one f/2.8 and one f/4.

If the corner performance of the 16-35 f/4 is the same or better than the f/2.8 II version then count me in, especially if it's also cheaper. The 16-35 f/2.8 is good at f/4, but IS would be of more use to me at these focal lengths than speed. I'm less interested in a 14-24 because chances are it'll have a bulging front element (a pain for filters) and I've never really wanted to go wider than 16mm.

Pricing is gonna be interesting. The 24-70 f/4 IS is about a third cheaper than the f/2.8 version, but both are new lenses. I have a horrible feeling than the 16-35 f/4 IS will be priced about the same as the current f/2.8 (around $1600) and if/when the new f2.8 version comes it'll be over $2K. Canon lens prices seem to generally be heading for the stratosphere.

If the corner performance of the 16-35 f/4 is the same or better than the f/2.8 II version then count me in, especially if it's also cheaper. The 16-35 f/2.8 is good at f/4, but IS would be of more use to me at these focal lengths than speed. I'm less interested in a 14-24 because chances are it'll have a bulging front element (a pain for filters) and I've never really wanted to go wider than 16mm.

And if you really need to go to 14mm occasionally, you can just pick up a Samyang 14mm and you are all set.

GC5 wrote:
If the Ef-s lens is as good as the little ef-m ultra wide it will be an intriguing little lens.

I am hoping both of these are good performers as I would consider ditching the 17-40 for the L if within reasonable price proximity (I'm guessing 1200).

Got my combo for the same price as the 17-40L was going for at the time, importing the EF-M 11-22 from Canada (thanks guys!). Sharpest wide-angle zoom Canon makes, same size and weight as the kit lens, with a great build quality to match the EOS-M.

It's one of the reasons I'm hoping that Canon has a semi-pro EOS-M in the works that can stand toe-to-toe with the MFT and Alpha MILCs in performance, if not in image quality as well.

pipspeak wrote:
Indeed. My guess is around the same price as the current 16-35 f/2.8, which is $1699. But I always dream of being pleasantly surprised

Yeah the Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR is around $1300 so that will give us a ball mark figure. Hopefully sanity will prevail and it drops to about $1K eventually. Yen has also weakened considerably in last 12 months, so it's about time we saw price drops across the board.

mmurph wrote:
It looks like it is targeted to parallel the 24-70 IS 4.0. Maybe we will also see a 16-35 2.8 II non-IS?

It seems that all of teh newer lenses Canon have released are very good for their respective classes. I would assume this would also be a nice lens, esenntially to replace the 17-40 4.0. I have very rarely used my 17-40, so not something taht I will pursue soon, although it should be a nice lens for those building the 4.0 IS kit: 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 IS.

I'm interested in this lens as a replacement for my good, but not great 17-40. If it's sharper across the frame, then it would make sense to co-exist with the current 16-35ii, but if not, then it doesn't make sense that it would cost just as much.

To me it seems to make more sense for Canon to release a 14-24 f4 for landscape use and a 16-40 f2.8 for reportage.
This would differentiate the lenses more and also make a strong case that it serves it's purpose better than the Nikon versions. I suppose for astrophotography wider and faster is better, but isn't that a smaller sub-group of users?